§ Mr. DALTON
I beg to move, to leave out the Clause.
This subject has been debated at considerable length on previous occasions, and I do not now propose to enter at any length upon the general arguments regarding Imperial Preference which have been developed in previous Debates in this House, but on this particular proposal to stabilise existing rates for 10 years I have certain comments to make in opposition to the proposal contained in the Clause. In the first place, we on these benches take the view that the principle of seeking to bind future Parliaments for so long a period as 10 years is thoroughly objectionable. We think that each Parliament should decide for itself, that the House of Commons each year should decide for itself what taxes should be imposed, increased or reduced, and that the principle now proposed is a pernicious principle to which hon. Members opposite would take strong exception if it were to be applied by a Labour Chancellor of the Exchequer to, for example, the Super-tax, the Death Duties, or any other form of direct taxation of wealthy persons.
§ Mr. DALTON
I am dealing with one thing at a time, if the hon. and gallant Member will allow me. If a Labour Chancellor of the Exchequer were greatly to increase the Super-tax, and were to endeavour to bind the House of Commons for 10 years in advance to maintain the rates undiminished, I think we should hear great complaints from hon. Members opposite. In the same way I think we should be prepared to admit that each Parliament should decide for itself its Super-tax no less than duties in the sphere of Customs and Excise. This principle of seeking to bind the future is, I think, objectionable on very clear and obvious grounds. Furthermore I do not believe the purpose of this 10 years scheme will really be achieved.
2026 The purpose of the scheme, we are told, is to give the Dominions and other parts of the Empire some sense of security that these preferential arrangements which have been entered into will be maintained for that period of time. If we read the Clause carefully we shall see that in fact provision is made for the possibility of the duties, in respect of which preference is given, being either reduced or repealed altogther. The Chancellor himself said in his Budget speech that it would be perfectly open to any Government within the next 10 years to repeal altogether the duty on tea or sugar or coffee, or any of these other commodities in respect of which preference operates. That being so, the Dominions do not really get any security at all against some future Chancellor, within the 10 years' period, sweeping away these duties altogether, whether upon Dominion produce or upon foreign produce in respect to which preference is now operating. Therefore the security pretended to be given is illusory. It will not realty create in the minds of clear-sighted people in the Empire any much greater sense of security in regard to preference than they possess at present, and it may very well develop a certain public opinion in the Dominion which will not clearly apprehend the exact meaning of the Clause and will not realise that this preference may disappear even under the operation of the Clause, and therefore considerable may be created if, a few years hence, the Chancellor should come forward and propose to sweep away altogether some of these duties. There is, in short, a very great danger of creating, instead of security, misunderstanding and which no well wisher of the Empire would desire to see created.
In the third place—a point purely arithmetical—I gather that the purpose of the Clause is to secure that in future changes in the rate of taxation the Dominions shall gain more under Imperial Preference than they would do if this Clause were not introduced. To put the thing in another way, at present the preference is given in the form of a certain percentage reduction of the rate of duty. It is proposed in future to give it by way of a certain fixed or absolute amount. In future, if the duty on imported sugar is reduced, the preference, instead of being a fixed proportion of the reduced duty, 2027 will be a fixed amount. The difference between the duty on foreign imports and the duty on Empire imports will be kept constant. It is true that, if you are reducing the duties, this new arrangement would benefit the Dominions and other parts of the Empire, but it is equally true that, if you increase any duty in respect of which preference is granted, this Clause will operate to diminish the advantage which the Empire producers now enjoy. If, for example, we should increase the duty on wine, instead of the preference to Empire wine being, as at present, a certain percentage of the duty, it would in future be a fixed amount. Therefore if the duty on foreign wine is increased by a certain amount the duty on Empire wine under this Clause will be higher than it would be if the Clause were not passed. So far as this Clause is put forward as an advantage to trade with other parts of the Empire, it will act in exactly the opposite direction, in so far as any increase in duties is concerned in the future. The Clause seems to have been designed by people who were contemplating the desirability of a reduction instead of an increase in taxation. But I doubt whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the midst of his present perplexities, is prepared to rule out the possibility of certain increases in respect of some of these Duties in regard to which Preference is now given.
Finally, the whole of this Clause, the whole machinery of stabilising the rates of Imperial Preference for 10 years, and appearing thereby to be achieving something new and remarkable, illustrates the very small way in which this Government is carrying out its election pledges to develop Empire trade. Speaking for myself and, I think, for a large number of hon. Members of all parties who are very desirous to see trade with all parts of the Empire developed, whether we are thinking of the Dominions or India or the Crown Colonies, I say that this Government which talked very big at the last election about what they were going to do to develop Empire trade, have done exceedingly little. It would not be in order on this Clause for me to go into details as to what they have done and what they have failed to do. What I do say is that, in so far as their 2028 achievements are to be measured by seeking to stabilise for 10 years the very trifling system of Preferences—I am not now expressing any view for or against Preferences as a principle—represented by these small and relatively unimportant Preferential duties, they are really playing with a large question. Those people who voted for them in the belief that an ambitious and well-conceived scheme of Empire development would be carried out, have been so far completely disappointed, and their disappointment will not be diminished by the passage into law of this Clause in the Finance Bill.
It is not for me to indicate in detail a better alternative than that which the Government have adopted, but I may perhaps in one sentence say that in my view, and in the view of the hon. Member for South East Ham (Mr. Barnes), who is to follow me, and who recently made a notable speech in the House on this matter, one of the great opportunities for developing Empire trade is not so much along these lines but along the lines of bulk purchases and big co-operative developments. Compared with the enormous possibilities of such a scheme, which the Government hitherto have shown no disposition to explore or enter upon, these pettifogging Preferences are very trifling indeed. Whether we take the view that Preferences are in all circumstances objectionable, as some hon. Members do, or whether we take the view that they are not so much objectionable as unimportant and ineffectual in comparison with the size of the problem to be tackled, we may say that, if this is the best that the Chancellor of the Exchequer can do in carrying out his election promises to develop Empire trade, he has very little to be proud of, or to take back to the electors when next he goes to the country to justify the record of his years of office.
When these alternative schemes, which I am not at liberty to develop to-night, are put forward by hon. Friends of mine, they are instantly scouted as Socialism. The hatred of Socialism in the minds of hon. Members opposite and their hatred of anything which can be represented as Socialism seems far greater than their love of the Empire or their desire to develop Empire trade by the means within their grasp at the present time. For the reason that they simply 2029 move within this old-fashioned, out-worn scheme of Imperial Preference, and within the existing mechanism of private enterprise and private trading, they will be unable to carry out their high-sounding professed intentions to develop trade between ourselves and our kith and kin in the Dominions overseas, or in India or the Crown Colonies. We are moving in this Clause in the region of very small and insignificant things. In so far as this Clause does anything, it does it in the wrong way. It creates an unfounded and false impression in the minds of people who do not very carefully study what is proposed. It will do very little good and a great deal more harm than good. In the minds of those engaged in trade it is likely to promote, not stability, but misunderstanding and, in events not at all improbable, ill-feeling and disillusionment.
§ Mr. SPEAKER
I desire to point out that the Amendment standing next on the Paper—in page 6, line 7, after the word "shall," to insert the wordsif shown to the satisfaction of the Commissioners to be produced under conditions of labour and payment of wages not less favourable than those prevalent among good employers of labour in the industry concerned"—is outside the scope of the Bill.
May I draw your attention to the fact that provisos dealing not only with the duty paid, but with the conditions of work under which the articles have been produced already exist. May I draw your attention to Sub-section (3) of this Clause, which says that purely Empire products mean such Empire product as is entitled to preferential rates under Section 8 of the Finance Bill? That Section empowers by Regulation the laying down of quite a number of conditions regarding the production of these articles. I would submit that to add to these conditions further conditions that labour conditions should be fair would not go outside the scope of the Bill.
May I ask whether the Amendment which I am proposing to move to omit Sub-section (3) would be an opportunity for raising the point, 2030 although I would respectfully press again the fact that it is competent to lay down the proportion of this and other classes of labour to be employed. I would respectfully submit it is competent to say whether the labour should be employed under fair or unfair conditions.
§ Mr. CHURCHILL
Anyone listening to the speech of the hon. Gentleman who moved this Amendment from the Front Opposition Bench would have supposed that he was an ardent advocate of imperial development and bitterly disappointed by the failure of the Government to give full effect to the high hopes excited in his bosom by the election campaign of a year and a-half ago. He comes to the House, and to his horror, grief and mortification all that we were able to do was to stabilise the existing preference for 10 years. This is dealing with it in a very small way! We are moving in the region of small and insignificant things! He used the expression "pettifogging"! These were some of the adjectives, though I cannot profess to have kept pace with their full flow. With a view to making these things less small and less pettifogging, it is proposed that the preference, instead of being stabilised for 10 years, should be stabilised on the basis of two.
§ Mr. CHURCHILL
I owe the hon. Member an apology in that respect. I see that the next Amendment is to reduce the period of 10 years to two years, and I do not know that he disagrees with that Amendment, which is in the names of three of his most closely associated political comrades. I think I am right in saying that he does not disagree with them and will vote for that Amendment in due course.
§ Mr. CHURCHILL
Another division in the Labour party! The hon. Member complains that we have done little in the matter of Imperial preference. It is quite true that Imperial preference as a means of uniting the Empire is confined within very definite and restricted limits, because if you do not put a tax on raw 2031 materials the number of subjects which can be made the basis of a preference is very restricted and limited. Perfectly plain and explicit declarations were made at the last General Election on that subject, and for a good many years it has been the ascertained and declared policy of every Government, however constituted. Consequently, this decision must be frankly faced and accepted. The sphere is limited, but is there any reason why we should not go to the full limit of the field that is laid open? A great deal of sentiment is gathered around the idea of reciprocal trade and preference, and in so far as we are not stopped by any definite undertakings which have been given it is our duty to carry that policy to its full limit. And why, if you are going to give a preference—I have not heard in the last 10 years that this was a matter of party controversy—if you are going to guide Imperial trade in a common channel, why should you not do so through the aid of preference, which does not involve fresh taxation. That is the Resolution of the Imperial Conference in 1917. It was openly promulgated and never challenged or disputed in any direction. Why should we not pursue it?
For my part I will gladly lend what aid and support I can give to its development. It has been stated that I said, "The door is banged, barred and bolted on Imperial preference." That is only one of the many instances of the awful lack of clearness which some people give to a study of the speeches of their political opponents or their political friends. What I said was that "the door is banged, barred and bolted upon the protective taxation of food;" and that constitutes exactly the situation and position adopted by His Majesty's Government at the present time. So far as this particular proposal is concerned, if it is legitimate, and I conceive that all parties are committed to the development of Imperial preference apart from the laying of taxes on articles of prime necessity, if it is legitimate to cultivate Imperial trade by measures of preference, surely it is only reasonable common sense to try to invest such measures of preference with as much stability, continuity and permanence as we can.
2032 11.0 P. M.
We have no power to bind the Parliament of the future, and I should greatly regret to have such a power. It is the elasticity of our Constitution only which has enabled us to survive many idiotic things which are done by all Parliaments from time to time, and not the least at the present time. We cannot bind the Parliament of the future, neither is there anything in this policy which prevents any of the taxes which are the subject of Preference being completely repealed. All that we say is that, in so far as and as long as these taxes are in force, there shall be these Preferences upon them, and that for 10 years, in so far as we have the power to direct events, the will of the present Parliament is that they shall be continuous and that there shall be stability. That is not merely a matter of sentiment. Anyone who has been, for example, to the West Indies and knows the condition of the sugar industry there will be well aware that it is idle to suppose that the people in those islands and the planters will be able to assemble the necessary capital and to make the works of cultivation and the developments which are necessary if they do not know from year to year that the basis of Preference on which their sugar industry is established will not be thrust away, and if these islands do not attain their prosperity through the development of such an industry as the cultivation of sugar, it only means that they will gradually fall back on to our hands to be supported by grants-in-aid, as many of them have had to do in the past. From the mere point of view of saving the Exchequer undue burdens, it is eminently desirable, once Preference is conceded, as it is conceded by all parties, that the greatest amount of stability should be given and the largest amount of security.
I quite agree that we cannot control what others may do, but, at any rate, we bring anyone into the open who wishes to reverse the system. It cannot be done merely by allowing matters to lapse You cannot simply fail to renew the Preferences in any particular year and allow them to lapse. It will be necessary in any future Parliament when it is sought to reverse this to come forward boldly and openly, and say that, in spite of the expectations which this declaration which we are now making has excited, in spite 2033 of the beliefs and hopes that have been founded upon it, we nevertheless, the new Parliament, decide in our undisputed sovereign, plenary right, to brush it away, to break and repudiate altogether what has been previously said. Nothing can impede the will of Parliament, but it would be a consideration which any House of Commons which had the slightest sense of responsibility or desire to keep things together and make things a little better, instead of gratifying party fads—or slogans, I believe, is the word—and regardless of the consequences to the general structure of the Empire and the land in which we live—any party that really desired to keep things together would be very chary, I think, of in a hurry repealing and reversing a declaration like this, solemnly taken by a previous Parliament. And, although their right is undisputed, their exercise of that right would probably be tempered by a good deal of reflection. Therefore, I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman that this is merely an illusory provision, that this is a matter of no substance nor value in reality to the Dominions. I think it will have the effect of making them take the fullest advantage of the Preferences accorded, and do their utmost to develop the different forms of production which are covered by those Preferences, and I believe they would be justified in doing so, because I think that any Parliament coming into being, although it might have absolutely no great sympathy with these ideas, would nevertheless have a lot of other things to do, and think twice or thrice before it began to run into a lot of unnecessary trouble and friction, and make enemies of many people who might otherwise be willing to give them fair play and reasonable consideration.
Therefore, I repudiate the suggestion that these are illusory provisions just as strongly as I resist any suggestion that we are tying the hands of future Parliaments or preventing the House of Commons from removing or repealing any conditions. I do hope that we may be allowed to move forward on this policy within the limits which I have explained without it being necessary to develop sharp differences on controversies which, though they were once so formidable that they tore this country in half, have now been reduced to limits within which they command the common 2034 support of responsible people in every quarter of the House.
Once again we are the privileged spectators of the march of events. The right hon. Gentleman, at the assembly of the Colonial Premiers in 1907, when they asked for something in the nature of a preferential system of taxation, told them to their faces that he had "banged, barred and bolted the door." Now he comes forward and himself defends this Clause on grounds which are absolutely unfounded.
§ Mr. CHURCHILL
I must correct the hon. and gallant Gentleman. When our memories go back over 20 years we are going back over a long time, but I would like my hon. and gallant Friend to give me the reference to those words which he says I used at the Imperial Conference.
The famous phrase is not in dispute—the door washanged, barred and bolted upon the protective taxation of food.
§ Mr. CHURCHILL
It is most vehemently in dispute, so far as I am concerned. I did not use the phrasebanged, barred and bolted upon the protective taxation of foodat the Imperial Conference nor within 400 miles of the Imperial Conference.
I am quite willing to withdraw if those words were not used in connection with the Imperial Conference. I was under the impression that they were.
Different people at different times on different topics express different views. The vice of this Clause is that it is giving the Dominions a vested interest in Protection and in the highest charges which Protection can impose on the consumers of this country. It gives the producers in the Dominions an interest in the high cost of living of our people. It is not only giving them that interest in the ad valorem form, but it is giving them that interest in the specific form, and that is much more difficult to get rid of. This Clause will make it all 2035 the more hard to get rid of all this ridiculous catalogue of taxes on gloves, gas mantles, bottles and all the other things which appear in these absurd Schedules.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer declared that there was something in this which would make it impossible for future Parliaments to go back on it without a positive declaration. There is nothing in this Clause which changes the law in the least, except the change from ad valorem to specific. The preference does not exist in virtue of this Clause, but in virtue of Section 8 of the Act of 1919. If this Clause were never passed to-night it would not change one jot or one tittle the position of Imperial preference. This is not a Clause in an Act of Parliament. This is a Primrose League manifesto. In so far as it means anything or nothing at all I hope it will be defeated in the Division Lobby.
§ Mr. HADEN GUEST
I agree with what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Mr. Dalton) from the Front Bench with regard to this particular Clause. The Chancellor of the Exchequer speaks of stabilising these preferences in this Clause. The foundation is extraordinarily precarious. It is extraordinarily doubtful whether Preferences to the West Indies, for example, are the best way of developing the imperial sugar trade. Anyone who has looked into the question of wages and public health conditions knows that you want more than the mere imposition of a Preference. I do not want to oppose a Preference as such in the absence of an alternative proposal. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer kept his Imperial ideas up to date he would realise that with the appointment, for instance, of the Imperial Marketing
§ Board you have a real foundation for Imperial trade much more solid than Imperial Preference. While the right hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden) has stated his intention of repealing all taxes on food as far as he can do so, no Government can repeal by resolution of the House of Commons the building up of trade by the Marketing Board, which is a much better alternative than preferences. The scientific intelligence service which it is proposed to set up for the benefit of producers in all parts of the Empire is one of various means in a kind of organisation which will remain permanent not only from Government to Government, but I might say from generation to generation. It is really an exceedingly doubtful business this question of preferences, at any rate with regard to sugar and other things. I suggest that the Chancellor of the Exchequer's enthusiasm for these preferences seems more an enthusiasm for dishing the Labour party by bringing them out to the open to say something that is not true. The Labour party is just as keen and anxious for Empire development as anyone on the other side of the House. We are not only keen and anxious but are actually working for it by means that will remain permanent instead of by these precarious methods of preferences. You may wipe away these preferences in the House of Commons, but you cannot wipe away the proposals of the Empire Marketing Board. They are therefore of much more value to the Empire than these preferences.
§ Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out. to the end of page 6, line 38, stand part of the Bill."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 227; Noes, 114.2039
|Division No. 330.]||AYES.||[11.15 p.m|
|Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel||Blades, Sir George Rowland||Butt, Sir Alfred|
|Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.||Blundell, F. N.||Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward|
|Alexander, E. E. (Layton)||Boothby, R. J. G.||Caine, Gordon Hall|
|Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)||Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.||Campbell, E. T.|
|Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.||Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive||Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)|
|Apsley, Lord||Briggs, J. Harold||Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)|
|Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.||Briscoe, Richard George||Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton|
|Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)||Brocklebank, C. E. R.||Charteris, Brigadier-General J.|
|Atkinson, C.||Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'I'd., Hexham)||Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer|
|Balfour, George (Hampstead)||Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C.(Berks,Newb'y)||Clarry, Reginald George|
|Beamish, Captain T. P. H.||Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan||Clayton, G. C.|
|Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)||Burman, J. B.||Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.|
|Ballairs, Commander Canyon W.||Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.||Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir G. K.|
|Bethel, A.||Burton, Colonel H. W.||Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips|
|Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)||Butler, Sir Geoffrey||Cooper. A. Duff|
|Cope, Major William||Hopkins, J. W. W.||Rice, Sir Frederick|
|Couper,.J. B.||Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.||Ropner, Major L.|
|Courtauld, Major J. S.||Howard, Captain Hon. Donald||Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.|
|Cowan Sir Wm. Henry (Islingtn. N.)||Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)||Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)|
|Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)||Hume, Sir G. H.||Rye, F. G.|
|Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)||Hurd, Percy A.||Salmon, Major I.|
|Crookshank, Col, C. de W. (Berwick)||Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.||Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)|
|Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)||Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)||Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)|
|Cunliffe, Sir Herbert||Jacob, A. E||Sandeman, A. Stewart|
|Curzon, Captain Viscount||Jephcott, A. R.||Sanders, Sir Robert A.|
|Dalkeith, Earl of||Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)||Sanderson, Sir Frank|
|Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.||Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)||Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.|
|Davies, Dr. Vernon||Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)||Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)|
|Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)||Kindersley, Major Guy M.||Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W)|
|Dixey, A. C.||King, Captain Henry Douglas||Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)|
|Eden, Captain Anthony||Knox, Sir Alfred||Sheffield, Sir Berkeley|
|Edmondson, Major A. J.||Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip||Shepperson, E. W.|
|Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)||Little, Dr. E. Graham||Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)|
|Elliot, Major Walter E.||Loder, J. de V.||Slaney, Major P. Kenyon|
|England, Colonel A.||Lougher, L.||Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)|
|Everard, W. Lindsay||Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere||Sprot, Sir Alexander|
|Falle, Sir Bertram G.||Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman||Stanley, Hon. O. F. G.(Westm'eland)|
|Fanshawe, Commander G. D.||MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen||Steel, Major Samuel Strang|
|Fermoy, Lord||Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)||Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.|
|Fielden, E. B.||Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)||Streatfeild, Captain S. R.|
|Forestier-Walker, Sir L.||McLean, Major A.||Strickland, Sir Gerald|
|Forrest, W.||Macmillan, Captain H.||Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.|
|Foxcroft, Captain C. T.||Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm||Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)|
|Fraser, Captain Ian||McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John||Styles, Captain H. Walter|
|Frece, Sir Walter de||Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-||Sugden, Sir Wilfrid|
|Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.||Malone, Major P. B.||Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)|
|Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony||Margesson, Captain D.||Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)|
|Galbraith, J. F. W.||Marriott, Sir J. A. R.||Tinne, J. A.|
|Gates, Percy||Mellor, R. J.||Titchfield, Major the Marquess of|
|Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton||Merriman, F. B.||Tryon, Rt Hon. George Clement|
|Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham||Meyer, Sir Frank||Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.|
|Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John||Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-||Waddington, R.|
|Glyn, Major R. G. C.||Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)||Wallace, Captain D. E.|
|Goff, Sir Park||Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.||Warrender, Sir Victor|
|Gower, Sir Robert||Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.||Waterhouse, Captain Charles|
|Grace, John||Moreing, Captain A. H.||Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)|
|Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.||Morrison Bell, Sir Arthur Clive||Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)|
|Grotrian, H. Brent||Nail, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph||Watts, Dr. T.|
|Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. (Bristol, N.)||Nelson, Sir Frank||Wells, S. R.|
|Guinness, Rt. Hon, Walter E.||Neville, R. J.||Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.|
|Gunston, Captain D. W.||Newman, Sir F. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)||White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dalrymple|
|Hall, Capt. W. WA, (Brecon & Rad.)||Nicholson, O. (Westminster)||Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)|
|Hammersley, S. S.||Nuttall, Ellis||Williams, Com. C. (Devon, To[...]quay)|
|Hanbury, C.||O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)||Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)|
|Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry||O'Neill, Major RI. Hon, Hugh||Wilson, M. J. (York, N. R., Richm'd)|
|Harland, A.||Oman, Sir Charles William C.||Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)|
|Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)||Pennefather, Sir John||Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George|
|Harrison, G. J. C.||Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)||Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl|
|Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)||Pielou, D. P.||Wise, Sir Fredric|
|Haslam, Henry C.||Pilditch, Sir Philip||Womersley, W. J.|
|Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)||Power, Sir John Cecil||Wood, E. (Chest'r. Stalyb'dge & Hyde)|
|Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.||Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Assheton||Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)|
|Hennessy, Major J. R. G.||Preston, William||Wragg, Herbert|
|Herbert, S. (York, N.R., Scar. & Wh'by)||Radford, E. A.|
|Hills, Major John Walter||Raine, W.||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)||Rees, Sir Beddoe||Major Sir Harry Barnston and|
|Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)||Remer, J. R.||Lord Stanley.|
|Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)||Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)||Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)|
|Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')||Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)||Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)|
|Ammon, Charles George||Day, Colonel Harry||Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)|
|Barnes, A.||Duncan, C.||Hardie, George D.|
|Barr, J.||Dunnico, H.||Harris, Percy A.|
|Batey, Joseph||Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)||Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon|
|Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)||Fenby, T. D.||Hayday, Arthur|
|Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.||Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.||Hayes, John Henry|
|Broad, F. A.||Gardner, J. P.||Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)|
|Bromley, J.||Gibbins, Joseph||Henderson, T. (Glasgow)|
|Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)||Gillett, George M.||Hirst, G. H.|
|Buchanan, G.||Gosling, Harry||Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)|
|Charleton, H. C.||Graham, D M. (Lanark, Hamilton)||Hors-Belisha, Leslie|
|Clowes, S.||Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm, (Edin., Cent.)||Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)|
|Cluse, W. S.||Greenall, T.||Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)|
|Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)||Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)||John, William (Rhondda, West)|
|Compton, Joseph||Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)||Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)|
|Crawford, H. E.||Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)||Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)|
|Dalton, Hugh||Grundy, T. W.||Kelly, W. T.|
|Kennedy, T.||Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)||Sullivan, J.|
|Kenworthy, Lt.-Com, Hon. Joseph M.||Riley, Ben||Sutton. J. E.|
|Lawrence, Susan||Rose, Frank H.||Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)|
|Lawson, John James||Runclman, Rt. Hon. Walter||Tinker, John Joseph|
|Lee, F.||Saklatvala, Shapurji||Townend, A. E.|
|Lindley, F. W.||Salter, Dr. Alfred||Vaint, S. P.|
|MacLaren, Andrew||Scurr, John||Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen|
|Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)||Sexton, James||Watson, W. M. (Dunfermllne)|
|March, S.||Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)||Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)|
|Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Palsiey)||Shiels, Dr. Drummond||Welsh, J. C.|
|Morris, R. H.||Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)||Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.|
|Murnin, H.||Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)||Wiggins, William Martin|
|Naylor, T. E.||Sitch, Charles H.||Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)|
|Oliver, George Harold||Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherh'the)||Williams, David (Swansea, East)|
|Palin, John Henry||Smith, H. B. Lees- (Kelghley)||Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)|
|Raine, W.||Snell, Harry||Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)|
|Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.||Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip||Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)|
|Ponsonby, Arthur||Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles|
|Potts, John S.||Stamford, T. W.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Purcell, A. A.||Stephen, Campbell||Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr.|
In order to save time I do not propose to move my Amendment to leave out Sub-section (3).